Report from Hearing today
I have knocked on doors and raised money on this basis on my crowdfunder written by Hodge:
“I am part of a campaign group called stop the Tesco Toxic Towers seeking to challenge the decision of Redbridge London Borough Council to grant planning permission to redevelop the Goodmayes Tesco Extra.
The development suffers from poor air quality being in an Air Quality Management Area. The development includes proposals to build a school, which will without sufficient safeguards put children at unacceptable risk. We believe the Council acted unlawfully in granting permission because they took insufficient account of air quality and did not take account of the World Health Organisation standards in making their decision.
The World Health Organisation has said that air pollution is the greatest environmental risk. It says air pollution is one of the leading threats to child health, accounting for almost 1 in 10 deaths in children under five years old. The UK government itself estimates that the annual mortality of human-made air pollution in the UK is roughly equivalent to between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths every year.
We have already instructed solicitors, Hodge Jones & Allen, to review the case and they consider that the case has four grounds of challenge which merit further investigation and advice from a barrister.
At this stage, we are raising £5,000 to instruct a barrister to review the grounds of challenge and, if there are grounds, to draft a statement of facts and grounds and then to send a pre-action protocol letter to the Council setting out our points of challenge.
If the Council refuses to take account of our letter, and this case ends up going to court and is successful, it could be significant as it would force developers in London implement design measures to protect local people if WHO limits on air pollution are not complied with; at the moment the Council purports only to comply with national limits which are significantly more relaxed and pose a higher threat to local people.
At a local level, we believe that it is important that children in Redbridge who attend the school are properly protected from the harmful effects of air pollution.” END
Yesterday,
a Hodge Lawyer wrote the below to me:
The Crowdfunding blurb you refer to was clearly written prior to me taking conduct of the matter, and in addition was clearly written prior to Counsel being instructed, stating "At this stage, we are raising £5,000 to instruct a barrister to review the grounds of challenge and, if there are grounds, to draft a statement of facts and grounds and then to send a pre-action protocol letter to the Council setting out our points of challenge". That paragraph alone makes it clear that we were investigating the matter to ascertain whether there were any merits, highlighting that a barrister would review the grounds to decide if there were any. The Crowdfunding site has no legal basis, and rather was an initial explanation of why you needed to raise money to instruct a barrister. I do not see the relevance of the initial blurb at this stage or at all in relation to the court proceedings. ENDs
I prefer the original advice given to me by Hodge, it was never changed by Hodge after the first written application which was knocked back and I continued to fundraise on that basis. The monies collected went to Hodge.
I welcome Counsel’s work, but the main issue remains the school for me.
Redbridge claim they do not need have to an air filter system for the proposed school, I say they do. I cannot understand why Redbridge maintain this position when the flats either side of the development have filters on either side to the eighth floor.
I say Hodge were wrong not to send me a 13th October court letter instructing documents for the bundle to be filed within 14 days. I had no opportunity to comment on the contents within the 14days, this seems wrong to me. I first out out about the 13th October 2022 letter on the 22nd November.
My letter to Hodge on this is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EaRyPYtqs915G0K0S9uoSEdRNnOCA59l/view?usp=share_link
Hodge's reply is at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wK3TmygTpJO0t58zbLMDOj27BRFxG5vv/view?usp=share_link
I was very insistent on documents relating to the school and I inadvertently crossed a line by writing this email to Hodge on the 28th November saying:
“I suggest Richard (our KC at time of writing) and I meet at 12:30pm tomorrow to see if we can come to an agreement. If no agreement can be reached, I will be minded to represent myself. ...
So if I decide to represent myself tomorrow, I will contact you to see if Hodge are willing to find a barrister who shares my belief that it is reasonable under equalities law to say the council had a duty to move the school inside the development and/or provide the best quality air filters.
Can bundles be made available for me tomorrow by Richard if we cannot come to an agreement?” END of email
Counsel came off the record due to taking exception to my email. I applied to the court today for an adjournment to find new legal advisors which was opposed by Redbridge. However, the judge did adjourn the hearing and I was given until the 6th December 2022 to make an application for the further documents.
BB 101: Ventilation, thermal comfort and indoor air quality 2018
This Building Bulletin provides guidance on ventilation, thermal comfort and indoor air quality in schools
6.5 Outdoor air pollutants and sources
A wide range of pollutants generated outdoors are either known or suspected of adversely affecting human health and the environment.
Key urban pollutants that need to be considered include those covered by the UK National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS)90 .
These are presented in Table 6 10. The description and main UK sources for each pollutant, as well as their potential effects on health/environment are discussed in the UK Air Quality Strategy (Volume 1). London and major UK cities now require measures to tackle the problem of exposure of staff and students to frequent high air pollution while working and studying inside school buildings.
The elevated air pollution levels close to some schools mean that designers must consider:
the location of air intakes in unpolluted zones
closing windows when external pollutant levels are high
the use of air filtration units
effective air filtration in ventilation systems
Air filtration is the most effective solution currently available to remove health damaging airborne pollutants and maintain clean indoor air for school buildings located in air pollution hotspots. Designers of ventilation systems for schools in areas of high pollution may therefore need to incorporate air filtration in such locations. (my emphasis) ENDs
This suggest Councils must consider ventilation systems in new schools to protect children from pollution. No reason as yet has been given by Redbridge as to why they have ignored their duty to consider school air filters.
I expect to apply to make an application for this and other documents shortly and I will report further in due course.
I remain of the view that Hodge's initial advice that the school issue was is our best point and remain baffled as to why it changed.
Comments
Post a Comment